+1, solid reasoning (surface area that infra hits vs osc), would love to
have the infra-core team onboard
stevemar
From: Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: 2015/12/03 11:53 AM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [os-client-config][infra] Proposing adding
infra-core to core
Hey all,
os-client-config is now in the critical path for Infra's Nodepool,
meaning that there are some places where a bug surfacing in it can take
down the entire CI infrastructure. Infra also uses many more of the
advanced features in clouds.yaml than most other people, so the surface
area that could be tickled is higher than day-to-day use via
openstackclient.
While this is unlikely to happen, because it's not a high-volume
changing project, it would still be nice to have a safety valve.
For that reason, and because the os-client-config core group is small in
the first place, I'd like to add the infra-core group as a subgroup to
to os-client-config-core.
Monty
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
